Cited by

We have acknowledged that the two concepts have not always been adequately distinguished in our prior case law and has resulted in confusion concerning “the differing considerations raised by these distinctive applications of the doctrine.” Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, cf. deNourie & Yost Homes, LLC v. Frost, 893 N.W.2d 669, 679 (Neb.

See Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, –79 (App. 1993) (explaining that a horizontal appeal occurs when a second trial judge is asked to reconsider the decision of another trial judge in the same matter, under no new circumstances and where no other reason warrants reconsideration).

Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II

Ranch Joint Venture, II, –79 (App. 1993).

Ranch Joint Venture, II, –79 (App. 1993)

Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II

Mortg., LLC, (law of the case provides that court decision in case is “the law of that case on the issues decided throughout all subsequent proceedings in both the trial and appellate courts, provided the facts, issues and evidence are substantially the same as those upon which the first decision rested”); Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, (“The doctrine referred to as ‘law of the case’ describes the judicial policy of refusing to reopen questions previously decided in the

See Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, –81 (App. 1993) (“[L]egal conclusions reached at the preliminary injunction phase of litigation do not constitute law of the case.”).

And though we have discretion not to apply the doctrine to a decision that is not yet final, see King, 240 Ariz. at 279, we see no basis to depart from it here, see Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, (enumerating reasons not to apply the doctrine, including manifest injustice or error; a “substantial change .

Id.; Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II

Ranch Joint Venture, II, – 79 (App. 1993) (improper horizontal appeals involve decisions of the same court and occur when a party unjustifiably seeks a second trial judge to reconsider the first trial judge’s decision in the same matter).

Ranch Joint Venture, II, -79 (App. 1993).

¶¶ 28–29 (App. 2007); see also Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, (“When .

Ranch Joint Venture, II, (“[W]e will not apply law of the case if the prior decision did not actually decide the issue in question.”).

Ranch Joint Venture, II, –79 (App. 1993) (“We criticize horizontal appeals because they waste judicial resources .

forms part of the general concept of law of the case as applied to decisions of the same court.” Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II

Ranch Joint Venture, II, –79 (App. 1993)).

¶¶ 28-29 (App. 2007); see also Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, (“When .

forms part of the general concept of law of the case as applied to decisions of the same court.” Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II

ecision to permit a horizontal appeal, which “is a request that a second trial judge reconsider the decision of the first trial judge in the same matter, even though no new circumstances have arisen in the interim and no other reason justifies reconsideration.” ¶ 29 (App. 2002) (quotation omitted); see Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, (“The policy against the procedure outlined in § 12-821.01(G) would have affected the outcome here is moot.

Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II

See Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, - 79 (App. 1993) (court has discretion whether to apply law-of-the-case doctrine in favor of its own prior decision).

Ranch Joint Venture, II, –81 (App. 1993) (“Under Rule 65(a), the trial court may not reach a final decision on the merits in a preliminary injunction hearing unless the hearing has been properly consolidated with a trial on the merits.”) (citations omitted).

¶12 “The doctrine referred to as ‘law of the case’ describes the judicial policy of refusing to reopen questions previously decided in the same case by the same court or a higher appellate court.” Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II

Ranch Joint Venture, II, (citations omitted).